Opening the library…

Search the Bible

On the Resurrection of the Flesh

Tertullian

Chapter 34

About this work

Author: Tertullian

Chapter XXXIV.—Christ Plainly Testifies to the Resurrection of the Entire Man. Not in His Soul Only, Without the Body.

To begin with the passage where He says that He

‹ Chapter 33 Chapter 35 ›

is

come

to

“

to

seek

and

to

save

that

which

is

lost

.

”

What

do

you

suppose

that

to

be

which

is

lost

?

Man

,

undoubtedly

.

The

entire

man

,

or

only

a

part

of

him

?

The

whole

man

,

of

course

.

In

fact

,

since

the

transgression

which

caused

man’s

ruin

was

committed

quite

as

much

by

the

instigation

of

the

soul

from

concupiscence

as

by

the

action

of

the

flesh

from

actual

fruition

,

it

has

marked

the

entire

man

with

the

sentence

of

transgression

,

and

has

therefore

made

him

deservedly

amenable

to

perdition

.

So

that

he

will

be

wholly

saved

,

since

he

has

by

sinning

been

wholly

lost

.

Unless

it

be

true

that

the

sheep

(

of

the

parable

)

is

a

“

lost

”

one

,

irrespective

of

its

body

;

then

its

recovery

may

be

effected

without

the

body

.

Since

,

however

,

it

is

the

bodily

substance

as

well

as

the

soul

,

making

up

the

entire

animal

,

which

was

carried

on

the

shoulders

of

the

Good

Shepherd

,

we

have

here

unquestionably

an

example

how

man

is

restored

in

both

his

natures

.

Else

how

unworthy

it

were

of

God

to

bring

only

a

moiety

of

man

to

salvation

—

and

almost

less

than

that

;

whereas

the

munificence

of

princes

of

this

world

always

claims

for

itself

the

merit

of

a

plenary

grace

!

Then

must

the

devil

be

understood

to

be

stronger

for

injuring

man

,

ruining

him

wholly

?

and

must

God

have

the

character

of

comparative

weakness

,

since

He

does

not

relieve

and

help

man

in

his

entire

state

?

The

apostle

,

however

,

suggests

that

“

where

sin

abounded

,

there

has

grace

much

more

abounded

.

”

How

,

in

fact

,

can

he

be

regarded

as

saved

,

who

can

at

the

same

time

be

said

to

be

lost

—

lost

,

that

is

,

in

the

flesh

,

but

saved

as

to

his

soul

?

Unless

,

indeed

,

their

argument

now

makes

it

necessary

that

the

soul

should

be

placed

in

a

“

lost

”

condition

,

that

it

may

be

susceptible

of

salvation

,

on

the

ground

that

is

properly

saved

which

has

been

lost

.

We

,

however

,

so

understand

the

soul’s

immortality

as

to

believe

it

“

lost

,

”

not

in

the

sense

of

destruction

,

but

of

punishment

,

that

is

,

in

hell

.

And

if

this

is

the

case

,

then

it

is

not

the

soul

which

salvation

will

affect

,

since

it

is

“

safe

”

already

in

its

own

nature

by

reason

of

its

immortality

,

but

rather

the

flesh

,

which

,

as

all

readily

allow

,

is

subject

to

destruction

.

Else

,

if

the

soul

is

also

perishable

(

in

this

sense

)

,

in

other

words

,

not

immortal

—

the

condition

of

the

flesh

—

then

this

same

condition

ought

in

all

fairness

to

benefit

the

flesh

also

,

as

being

similarly

mortal

and

perishable

,

since

that

which

perishes

the

Lord

purposes

to

save

.

I

do

not

care

now

to

follow

the

clue

of

our

discussion

,

so

far

as

to

consider

whether

it

is

in

one

of

his

natures

or

in

the

other

that

perdition

puts

in

its

claim

on

man

,

provided

that

salvation

is

equally

distributed

over

the

two

substances

,

and

makes

him

its

aim

in

respect

of

them

both

.

For

observe

,

in

which

substance

so

-

ever

you

assume

man

to

have

perished

,

in

the

other

he

does

not

perish

.

He

will

therefore

be

saved

in

the

substance

in

which

he

does

not

perish

,

and

yet

obtain

salvation

in

that

in

which

he

does

perish

.

You

have

(

then

)

the

restoration

of

the

entire

man

,

inasmuch

as

the

Lord

purposes

to

save

that

part

of

him

which

perishes

,

whilst

he

will

not

of

course

lose

that

portion

which

cannot

be

lost

.

Who

will

any

longer

doubt

of

the

safety

of

both

natures

,

when

one

of

them

is

to

obtain

salvation

,

and

the

other

is

not

to

lose

it

?

And

,

still

further

,

the

Lord

explains

to

us

the

meaning

of

the

thing

when

He

says

:

“

I

came

not

to

do

my

own

will

,

but

the

Father’s

,

who

hath

sent

me

.

”

What

,

I

ask

,

is

that

will

?

“

That

of

all

which

He

hath

given

me

I

should

lose

nothing

,

but

should

raise

it

up

again

at

the

last

day

.

”

Now

,

what

had

Christ

received

of

the

Father

but

that

which

He

had

Himself

put

on

?

Man

,

of

course

,

in

his

texture

of

flesh

and

soul

.

Neither

,

therefore

,

of

those

parts

which

He

has

received

will

He

allow

to

perish

;

nay

,

no

considerable

portion

—

nay

,

not

the

least

fraction

,

of

either

.

If

the

flesh

be

,

as

our

opponents

slightingly

think

,

but

a

poor

fraction

,

then

the

flesh

is

safe

,

because

not

a

fraction

of

man

is

to

perish

;

and

no

larger

portion

is

in

danger

,

because

every

portion

of

man

is

in

equally

safe

keeping

with

Him

.

If

,

however

,

He

will

not

raise

the

flesh

also

up

at

the

last

day

,

then

He

will

permit

not

only

a

fraction

of

man

to

perish

,

but

(

as

I

will

venture

to

say

,

in

consideration

of

so

important

a

part

)

almost

the

whole

of

him

.

But

when

He

repeats

His

words

with

increased

emphasis

,

“

And

this

is

the

Father’s

will

,

that

every

one

which

seeth

the

Son

,

and

believeth

on

Him

,

may

have

eternal

life

:

and

I

will

raise

him

up

at

the

last

day

,

”

—

He

asserts

the

full

extent

of

the

resurrection

.

For

He

assigns

to

each

several

nature

that

reward

which

is

suited

to

its

services

:

both

to

the

flesh

,

for

by

it

the

Son

was

“

seen

;

”

and

to

the

soul

,

for

by

it

He

was

“

believed

on

.

”

Then

,

you

will

say

,

to

them

was

this

promise

given

by

whom

Christ

was

“

seen

.

”

Well

,

be

it

so

;

only

let

the

same

hope

flow

on

from

them

to

us

!

For

if

to

them

who

saw

,

and

therefore

believed

,

such

fruit

then

accrued

to

the

operations

of

the

flesh

and

the

soul

,

how

much

more

to

us

!

For

more

“

blessed

,

”

says

Christ

,

“

are

they

who

have

not

seen

,

and

yet

have

believed

;

”

since

,

even

if

the

resurrection

of

the

flesh

must

be

denied

to

them

,

it

must

at

any

rate

be

a

fitting

boon

to

us

,

who

are

the

more

blessed

.

For

how

could

we

be

blessed

,

if

we

were

to

perish

in

any

part

of

us

?

Notes

1
Luke xix. 10.
2
Rom. v. 20.
3
John vi. 38.
4
Ver. 39.
5
Ver. 40.
6
John xx. 29.